Comments

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

How about we direct some of the anger instead of to each others VIEW / DIFFERING OPINION of what Liam said instead point all anger at the rapist! that is where the anger should be..

Unfortunately, directing all of his anger at the rapist didn't occur to Liam at the time.

Feel free to make another thread, though, where you can appropriately direct all of your anger. You could even add a poll to find out how many people are angry at the rapist and how many are not. Should be interesting.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom that I shall pop directly into my shredder.. as you can see I have no anger so why tell me to 'direct my anger' eh? but thank you for the sarcastic reply which by now is being sold as hamster cage filler (shredded paper)

wanders off to skip through the tulips ..

You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then.

Speaking for myself, you can take it as a given that my capacity for anger for all rapists is unlimited, but that need not stop me nor anyone else from discussing other topics.

Please do not twist my words...I was just saying that this thread had become angry at what seems each post and that perhaps more anger towards the rapist was a better idea.. nowhere in my post did I (as you put it) You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then that's a given as clearly I WANT the anger at rapist not each other when we have differing opinions...

This is thread is about Liam Neeson and what he said. If you want to talk about how we should be mad at the rapist then start another thread.

I would hope that a thread like that would be a bit redundant, as anger toward rape should go without saying, but then again we have people here defending overt racism, so who knows, you might get another thirty pages out of us.

To be honest when you say that stuff it makes me wonder whether your more concerned about the fact of racism, or more interested in using it as a vehicle for your own narrow opinions about people.

Pardon?

You seem to be implying that FM's want to excuse racism or defend it. I can only speak for myself but no I don't. Understanding it is more interesting.

Stoatie and I have provided to you links of FMs saying what Liam Neeson did wasn't racist. How much more obvious do you need it to be?

eta: Last night someone said if wanting to kill an innocent black man for the crime of another black man isn't racist, then what is. I replied I'd like to know the answer to that as well. You replied to tell me there's a difference between racist and racially motivated. I've asked you a few times now why you think it's important we make that distinction, but you continue to dodge and instead have resorted to a weird attempt to impugn my motives.

Yes and I acknowledged them. Thanks.

Personally I don't want to simplify it into 'I wandered the streets wanting to kill a random black guy' without taking the context it occurred into consideration. That doesn't make what he felt or did right, and as far as I'm concerned it's not normalising his behaviour, he reacted under extreme trauma and unfocussed rage. Then he got a hold of himself and now he's being honest about what occurred.

So sue me for being an old racist wanting to excuse the racism of another if you want. But when something occurred for a week decades ago, under extreme circumstances, and which no one ultimately got hurt by, he accepts his thinking was wrong and he's given no indication of hating black/ethnic minorites since, then I think the fact that people are calling for a boycott and hope his career is ruined - not you I know - seems to me to be out of all proportion, and is probably doing more damage by dumbing down the discussion on race and will likely make people too afraid to speak out honestly.

At no point have I called for a boycott or hoped that his career is ruined. I have already told you I can accept that he may have changed, and I am glad he realised the error of his ways, but at the same time I'm not about to give him a pat on the back for changing his mind about murdering someone.

I've said the reason I got involved in this thread was because I saw people arguing what he did wasn't racist, and what he did was understandable. That, in my opinion, is an attempt to downplay what he did. Others may find his actions understandable, but I don't. Again, I don't think that makes me unique, I think that Neeson's actions forty years ago were extreme and deserving of condemnation. If you think that's unreasonable, I don't know what else to say to you.

I know you haven't, and I don't really understand your pat on the back reference TBH. I don't think anyone is cheering his past actions on and crying go Liam.

Understanding, or trying to understand him is not the same as condoning racism. Focusing only, and exclusively, on his actions for one short period of time and drawing a conclusion on that is what those who are calling for his boycott are doing. That's pretty worrying, and for me at least, shows the reasons behind prejudice and bigotry are not being addressed just recalibrated.

A lot of murderers just murder once and it doesn’t take long... maybe we need to rethink this whole court thing as these actions for a short period of time do not a man define.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

How about we direct some of the anger instead of to each others VIEW / DIFFERING OPINION of what Liam said instead point all anger at the rapist! that is where the anger should be..

Unfortunately, directing all of his anger at the rapist didn't occur to Liam at the time.

Feel free to make another thread, though, where you can appropriately direct all of your anger. You could even add a poll to find out how many people are angry at the rapist and how many are not. Should be interesting.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom that I shall pop directly into my shredder.. as you can see I have no anger so why tell me to 'direct my anger' eh? but thank you for the sarcastic reply which by now is being sold as hamster cage filler (shredded paper)

wanders off to skip through the tulips ..

You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then.

Speaking for myself, you can take it as a given that my capacity for anger for all rapists is unlimited, but that need not stop me nor anyone else from discussing other topics.

Please do not twist my words...I was just saying that this thread had become angry at what seems each post and that perhaps more anger towards the rapist was a better idea.. nowhere in my post did I (as you put it) You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then that's a given as clearly I WANT the anger at rapist not each other when we have differing opinions...

This is thread is about Liam Neeson and what he said. If you want to talk about how we should be mad at the rapist then start another thread.

I would hope that a thread like that would be a bit redundant, as anger toward rape should go without saying, but then again we have people here defending overt racism, so who knows, you might get another thirty pages out of us.

To be honest when you say that stuff it makes me wonder whether your more concerned about the fact of racism, or more interested in using it as a vehicle for your own narrow opinions about people.

Pardon?

You seem to be implying that FM's want to excuse racism or defend it. I can only speak for myself but no I don't. Understanding it is more interesting.

Stoatie and I have provided to you links of FMs saying what Liam Neeson did wasn't racist. How much more obvious do you need it to be?

eta: Last night someone said if wanting to kill an innocent black man for the crime of another black man isn't racist, then what is. I replied I'd like to know the answer to that as well. You replied to tell me there's a difference between racist and racially motivated. I've asked you a few times now why you think it's important we make that distinction, but you continue to dodge and instead have resorted to a weird attempt to impugn my motives.

Yes and I acknowledged them. Thanks.

Personally I don't want to simplify it into 'I wandered the streets wanting to kill a random black guy' without taking the context it occurred into consideration. That doesn't make what he felt or did right, and as far as I'm concerned it's not normalising his behaviour, he reacted under extreme trauma and unfocussed rage. Then he got a hold of himself and now he's being honest about what occurred.

So sue me for being an old racist wanting to excuse the racism of another if you want. But when something occurred for a week decades ago, under extreme circumstances, and which no one ultimately got hurt by, he accepts his thinking was wrong and he's given no indication of hating black/ethnic minorites since, then I think the fact that people are calling for a boycott and hope his career is ruined - not you I know - seems to me to be out of all proportion, and is probably doing more damage by dumbing down the discussion on race and will likely make people too afraid to speak out honestly.

At no point have I called for a boycott or hoped that his career is ruined. I have already told you I can accept that he may have changed, and I am glad he realised the error of his ways, but at the same time I'm not about to give him a pat on the back for changing his mind about murdering someone.

I've said the reason I got involved in this thread was because I saw people arguing what he did wasn't racist, and what he did was understandable. That, in my opinion, is an attempt to downplay what he did. Others may find his actions understandable, but I don't. Again, I don't think that makes me unique, I think that Neeson's actions forty years ago were extreme and deserving of condemnation. If you think that's unreasonable, I don't know what else to say to you.

I know you haven't, and I don't really understand your pat on the back reference TBH. I don't think anyone is cheering his past actions on and crying go Liam.

Understanding, or trying to understand him is not the same as condoning racism. Focusing only, and exclusively, on his actions for one short period of time and drawing a conclusion on that is what those who are calling for his boycott are doing. That's pretty worrying, and for me at least, shows the reasons behind prejudice and bigotry are not being addressed just recalibrated.

A lot of murderers just murder once and it doesn’t take long... maybe we need to rethink this whole court thing as these actions for a short period of time do not a man define.

If he'd actually murdered someone, it would have been a whole different story.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

I've no doubt you're right, something else would be found to divide us. But it's not something we would fall into naturally as a matter of course. As per your example with the Irish, those in power perpetuate belief systems of bigotry and hierarchy to justify their dominion over others.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

I've no doubt you're right, something else would be found to divide us. But it's not something we would fall into naturally as a matter of course. As per your example with the Irish, those in power perpetuate belief systems of bigotry and hierarchy to justify their dominion over others.

I honestly don't know. What is natural what is not. I think prejudice is too widespread and common for it not to be a part of human nature. Then again if a group of mixed races were brought up with no historical baggage I'm fairly sure skin colour would be no more remarked on than hair colour. Perhaps it's fair to say that if we go looking for reasons we find them soon enough. Especially in a competitive environment.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

I've no doubt you're right, something else would be found to divide us. But it's not something we would fall into naturally as a matter of course. As per your example with the Irish, those in power perpetuate belief systems of bigotry and hierarchy to justify their dominion over others.

I honestly don't know. What is natural what is not. I think prejudice is too widespread and common for it not to be a part of human nature. Then again if a group of mixed races were brought up with no historical baggage I'm fairly sure skin colour would be no more remarked on than hair colour. Perhaps it's fair to say that if we go looking for reasons we find them soon enough. Especially in a competitive environment.

Well as I mentioned earlier, it's right there in history, and it's quite fascinating imo, I'd highly recommend reading about it. I'm struggling to think of a single prejudice that didn't arise from those in power perpetuating it. Racism, homophobia, nationalism, sectarianism. These things aren't inevitable or universal; instead what you find is that at different times in history and in different societies those prejudices have not existed until those with power perpetuated them for their own gain. The bottom line is people have to be convinced into prejudice.

How about we direct some of the anger instead of to each others VIEW / DIFFERING OPINION of what Liam said instead point all anger at the rapist! that is where the anger should be..

Unfortunately, directing all of his anger at the rapist didn't occur to Liam at the time.

Feel free to make another thread, though, where you can appropriately direct all of your anger. You could even add a poll to find out how many people are angry at the rapist and how many are not. Should be interesting.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom that I shall pop directly into my shredder.. as you can see I have no anger so why tell me to 'direct my anger' eh? but thank you for the sarcastic reply which by now is being sold as hamster cage filler (shredded paper)

wanders off to skip through the tulips ..

You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then.

Speaking for myself, you can take it as a given that my capacity for anger for all rapists is unlimited, but that need not stop me nor anyone else from discussing other topics.

Please do not twist my words...I was just saying that this thread had become angry at what seems each post and that perhaps more anger towards the rapist was a better idea.. nowhere in my post did I (as you put it) You want us to direct our anger at the rapist, but you yourself don't have anger for the rapist? Ok then that's a given as clearly I WANT the anger at rapist not each other when we have differing opinions...

This is thread is about Liam Neeson and what he said. If you want to talk about how we should be mad at the rapist then start another thread.

I would hope that a thread like that would be a bit redundant, as anger toward rape should go without saying, but then again we have people here defending overt racism, so who knows, you might get another thirty pages out of us.

To be honest when you say that stuff it makes me wonder whether your more concerned about the fact of racism, or more interested in using it as a vehicle for your own narrow opinions about people.

Pardon?

You seem to be implying that FM's want to excuse racism or defend it. I can only speak for myself but no I don't. Understanding it is more interesting.

Stoatie and I have provided to you links of FMs saying what Liam Neeson did wasn't racist. How much more obvious do you need it to be?

eta: Last night someone said if wanting to kill an innocent black man for the crime of another black man isn't racist, then what is. I replied I'd like to know the answer to that as well. You replied to tell me there's a difference between racist and racially motivated. I've asked you a few times now why you think it's important we make that distinction, but you continue to dodge and instead have resorted to a weird attempt to impugn my motives.

Yes and I acknowledged them. Thanks.

Personally I don't want to simplify it into 'I wandered the streets wanting to kill a random black guy' without taking the context it occurred into consideration. That doesn't make what he felt or did right, and as far as I'm concerned it's not normalising his behaviour, he reacted under extreme trauma and unfocussed rage. Then he got a hold of himself and now he's being honest about what occurred.

So sue me for being an old racist wanting to excuse the racism of another if you want. But when something occurred for a week decades ago, under extreme circumstances, and which no one ultimately got hurt by, he accepts his thinking was wrong and he's given no indication of hating black/ethnic minorites since, then I think the fact that people are calling for a boycott and hope his career is ruined - not you I know - seems to me to be out of all proportion, and is probably doing more damage by dumbing down the discussion on race and will likely make people too afraid to speak out honestly.

At no point have I called for a boycott or hoped that his career is ruined. I have already told you I can accept that he may have changed, and I am glad he realised the error of his ways, but at the same time I'm not about to give him a pat on the back for changing his mind about murdering someone.

I've said the reason I got involved in this thread was because I saw people arguing what he did wasn't racist, and what he did was understandable. That, in my opinion, is an attempt to downplay what he did. Others may find his actions understandable, but I don't. Again, I don't think that makes me unique, I think that Neeson's actions forty years ago were extreme and deserving of condemnation. If you think that's unreasonable, I don't know what else to say to you.

I know you haven't, and I don't really understand your pat on the back reference TBH. I don't think anyone is cheering his past actions on and crying go Liam.

Understanding, or trying to understand him is not the same as condoning racism. Focusing only, and exclusively, on his actions for one short period of time and drawing a conclusion on that is what those who are calling for his boycott are doing. That's pretty worrying, and for me at least, shows the reasons behind prejudice and bigotry are not being addressed just recalibrated.

A lot of murderers just murder once and it doesn’t take long... maybe we need to rethink this whole court thing as these actions for a short period of time do not a man define.

If he'd actually murdered someone, it would have been a whole different story.

likewise if he'd attacked some one, and likewise if he'd gone looking for any black man.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

I've no doubt you're right, something else would be found to divide us. But it's not something we would fall into naturally as a matter of course. As per your example with the Irish, those in power perpetuate belief systems of bigotry and hierarchy to justify their dominion over others.

I honestly don't know. What is natural what is not. I think prejudice is too widespread and common for it not to be a part of human nature. Then again if a group of mixed races were brought up with no historical baggage I'm fairly sure skin colour would be no more remarked on than hair colour. Perhaps it's fair to say that if we go looking for reasons we find them soon enough. Especially in a competitive environment.

Well as I mentioned earlier, it's right there in history, and it's quite fascinating imo, I'd highly recommend reading about it. I'm struggling to think of a single prejudice that didn't arise from those in power perpetuating it. Racism, homophobia, nationalism, sectarianism. These things aren't inevitable or universal; instead what you find is that at different times in history and in different societies those prejudices have not existed until those with power perpetuated them for their own gain. The bottom line is people have to be convinced into prejudice.

I hope you're right because at least there's some hope that we can deal with it.

Let’s be honest it looks decent but probably one of his worst movies becuase it reminds me of Death wish with the humour action. I prefer his films that are action only

It’s not something that interests me. We regularly go to the cinema but I’ve never gone to watch one of his films. I find him dull and one dimensional in that I’ve only seen him do ‘brooding morose’ and not particularly well at that imo.
I have though seen bits of the Taken films at home when my Husband has been watching them. If I want to see a revenge film I’d go with the intelligence, wit and nuanced genius of a Tarantino film.

lets fixate on the racist bit and avoid considering the heinous crime which sparked this whole affair, along with his realisation of his wrong doing, his personal growth as a person and the fact it was 40+ years ago --- says too many people

As another FM said, you'd rather hope that a thread about whether or not rape was wrong would be completely redundant, but knowing some of the likes that lurk this forum you'd probably get some defending it.

As we've seen on this thread there are people who will try to rationalise and normalise awful behaviour—even an attempt to murder an innocent black man—to convince themselves that secretly everybody feels the same way (so it can't be that bad eh). They're like the people who tell you Tommy Robinson and his ilk are "only saying what everyone is thinking" — they're in denial that racism is wrong, they need to believe that everyone is racist and will tell themselves that even those who oppose racism are secretly racist. It's a way of not having to feel guilty about their unsavoury attitudes and to dismiss criticism of racism as a form of hypocrisy.

As the FM above and plenty of others have inferred, if you oppose racism it's only because you're not self aware enough to realise you're racist deep down as well. Mental gymnastics at their best.

It seems as though all you can take from this is Liam Neeson attempted to murder an innocent black man. He actually didn't. He realised he was going about dealing with things all wrong, sought help and came out the other side. That doesn't seem to factor into your thinking. Do you think he should have his career and life ruined now.

Why would I think he should have his life and career ruined? Not only have I said no such thing, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm specifically discussing this solitary event that happened 40 years ago. I've quite clearly stated that I'm not saying he is or was racist but just that what he did 40 years ago was a racist thing to think and do.

The only people I'm disagreeing with are those who are saying it wasn't racist, those trying to tell me that I would have done the same thing, and those saying that anger towards an entire racial group (as opposed to anger towards the actual perpetrator) is natural and normal.

So you don't think he should have his life ruined. That's good.

While I think that racism probably arises, in part at least, from evolutionary impulses, I'm not going to agree that because it's natural it's OK. Everything we think and do is natural after all. As human beings we have a responsibility to police our thoughts and actions as best we can.

Well yeah, agreed. That's the entire point of civilisation and human society.

Which is why evo-psych shit gets on my tits so much... "lobsters do this", "apes do that"- humans invented their own social structures which AVOID that as much as possible. And that's evolution too! (Sorry, getting a bit off-topic there...)

Although, as Slarti says, the concept of "race" is far more a social construct than a biological one. We divide ourselves along the entirely arbitrary line of skin colour. We could have drawn that line ANYWHERE across ANYTHING, but that's the one we chose. That's a social construct right there.

The thing is not where or what the line is, It's that it's that it's going to be drawn somewhere regardless What part is the human construct or the evolutionary urge who knows..

Who knows? Well we do, because of history. We know, for example, that when European powers began colonising other parts of the world they drew that line and promoted race as being a thing, in particular a hierarchy of race with white skinned people at the top. It wasn't simply random chance, it was the result of the state needing to justify the subjugation of other people to their populations (both their own and those they were subjugating). This official doctrine filtered down into the public consciousness, which we can see from literature at the time.

If we all woke up the same race tomorrow, we'd probably invent another reason.

Just to add. The Irish, for example were regarded as savage and primitive by the majority of the English for many many years. That despite the historical fact of all the learning and achievements of that island.

I've no doubt you're right, something else would be found to divide us. But it's not something we would fall into naturally as a matter of course. As per your example with the Irish, those in power perpetuate belief systems of bigotry and hierarchy to justify their dominion over others.

I honestly don't know. What is natural what is not. I think prejudice is too widespread and common for it not to be a part of human nature. Then again if a group of mixed races were brought up with no historical baggage I'm fairly sure skin colour would be no more remarked on than hair colour. Perhaps it's fair to say that if we go looking for reasons we find them soon enough. Especially in a competitive environment.

Well as I mentioned earlier, it's right there in history, and it's quite fascinating imo, I'd highly recommend reading about it. I'm struggling to think of a single prejudice that didn't arise from those in power perpetuating it. Racism, homophobia, nationalism, sectarianism. These things aren't inevitable or universal; instead what you find is that at different times in history and in different societies those prejudices have not existed until those with power perpetuated them for their own gain. The bottom line is people have to be convinced into prejudice.

I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but there are other factors in play. I'm no expert, but I've got a friend studying social psychology and child development and one of the topics we talked about recently was around the social construct of childhood and then adulthood. I ended up learning about essentialism and deterministic theories of development.

Short version was the following around Essentialism to the best of my knowledge:

Essentialism is a theory that nearly everything has some kind of innate grouping quality. Fish, Birds, Cats, People and so on. There will be lots of differences, and we may not truly be able to explain the innate common characteristics, but studies have shown that nearly all of us, even young children, tend to have essentialist views and to think in group terms. It's not learned in other words, it's actually a natural thing to do.

It has some use, but it can easily lead to stereotypes and prejudice particularly as we apply ignorant knowledge to smaller groups of things - people from London, females over 60, black teenagers and so on.

I'm not sure anyone would be overly interested - but you can find out more here -

The good news is it is possible to affect and alter essentialist views with children and adults, and clearly we shouldn't give in to bias and prejudice.

I'm saying that it isn't just people in power creating prejudice - it is something humans do. History is violent and full of conquerors who subjugate people. That's affected every race on the planet, it wasn't something evil white men invented. At least we're living in a time where people are being convinced out of natural biases and prejudice and we're aware of them. That's changed relatively recently. If we assume that the topic of this thread is something that happened 40 years ago, and that Liam Neeson told other friends of his anger and feelings at the time - how many of those would have just shrugged, agreed with him or not cared at all? And then contrast that to his own statements of his feelings and how we've reacted today. For me it's more the case that people have to be educated and convinced out of prejudice - and thankfully, by and large that is happening and it is improving. It may not always feel like it and bad shit still happens, but it's getting better.